You and I have been swamped with the idea that the Iranians are these great terrorists. This is something the great terrorist Netanyahu reinforces every time he opens his deeply sick and racist mouth. It would have not escaped Netanyahu’s attention, and the attention of yahoo’s everywhere, that the drumbeat of Cato the Censor (Carthage must be destroyed) was ultimately successful.
The Israelis need not be destroyed. But Jews must be brought under strict third party control, something akin to the control they have us under now. We have to be released from our shackles, they must be under some supervision to make sure they forget about all mischief, and therein will be the peace and flourishing of the species.
For the rest of us we just need to use zen thought control techniques to counter-act the hateful rolling thunder of defamation, blood libel, and demonisation that the Jews have foisted off upon the gentile in stages. The Russians copped it. The proud Cossacks were horribly defamed and slaughtered under zionist influence. The Germans still suffer under the menace and blood libel of the Jews. Then it was the Arabs turn. And in fact the Jew defames whitey whenever he gets a chance. Organised Jewry is psychopathic against all Yamnaya.
So take the following information and see how it can be reinterpreted under the expectations created by Jew demonisation.
Here the great warrior shows us what he was really working for. The safety and security of all of Gods children. But in the light of Jew demonisation the picture changes radically.
Exhibit A
The White Prince, destroyer of ISIS, warrior for civilised values, with a little Yamnaya Gentleman.
Exhibit B
Longstanding killer of women and children, the well-known terrorist Professor Moriarti Soleimani bin Goldstein, has captured an American child and is now brutally extracting information from the victim, to aid in his plot to harm Americas legitimate interests.
Just great that Robin Duell is thinking in these terms whether he’s right or wrong. “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” Some folks interpret that as Newtonian putdown on the physical stature of Robert Hook. I prefer the motto of “seeing further by pushing down hard on the heads of recalcitrant dwarves.” Because most of ones understanding comes when you are arguing with people who have ran out of sane argument. WXcycles is no dwarf and in good time I’ll be going back to take in every word he’s written. A goldmine of excellent information. His combination of detailed observations, with pure fantasy physics, has helped me put this lingering nuisance of the circumpolar current to bed. Well at least its help me have a functioning mind model of what is going on.
So in my model of what is going on you have negative charge being created at the earths centre. Which has a voided region, where the iron crystalline core is supposed to be. As you have to conclude with any rational analysis of gravity, up and down reverse at some point as you travel to the centre of the earth. It may even reverse three times but it reverses at least once. Anyway the negative charges generated at the centre end up rising up to meet the positive charges coming in from space. Ultimately from the sun of course. But not limited to daytime. But Antarctica is covered by an insulator. Thick ice insulation So the positive charges have no choice but to swirl around and around the continent scooping up any negative charges they can find. Negative charges will be more concentrated on the coast where there is no ice, then in most places on the planet. Since the full body of the continent is covered by an insulator.
>>>>>>>>>
I was arguing with a BOM meteorologist over at Joanne’s place. He lost the argument so I was trying to shame him into an admission. But the scientific method is not favoured amongst scientists. So I’ll copy one of his comments just so you know what I’m talking about. Then I’ll copy all my responses so you can figure out what is really going on outside of his fantasy version.
Its true that I cannot prove the above statement because the bad guys have monopolised on the data. But its the most likely hypothesis so I’d like to see research out there to prove if its wrong or right. The global warming fraud, when confronted with the heat island effect, comes up with some fuckwit saying that the effect is not all that bad. Then thats the end of the matter. So they won’t compile separate graphs where the heat island effect is not part of the story. They wave it away. So we don’t have honest ground data outside the American raw data.
We have to work with whatever we have. We cannot use the fraudulent NOAA and GISS data. We know its dirty. So we don’t have much to work with but we have to scrounge around for what we can get.
Tony Heller has managed to search out old Australian and American data that is honest data. The fraudsters have this excuse that the lower 48 States is only 2% of the global area so they bullshit people that we can dismiss this data. But its the only sound data that has been compiled without being fucked by Oligarchical minions. Not all of them gentiles. So we simply must go with the data we have.
What Tony Heller has gotten hold of shows us that we must presume a slight cooling trend for the globe as an whole, based on Australian and American data, if the 1890’s or the 1930’s is our starting point. Take another starting point and you may find another trend. There is no excuses not to extrapolate this to the globe as an whole until you can find honest data for the globe as an whole. And the money is not there to do that. The data is there. The money is lacking.
The honest way to go forward is not to whine that the Australian and lower 48 data is not complete. It should be representative, and if we are unsure we should expect money forthcoming for people to keep adding sanctified measuring stations. No heat island effect and no fucking excuses for the heat island effect.
But what about the honest data? The balloon radiosondes and the satellite data since 1979 is still honest data. But there is a problem with it. It gives us a false positive for very obvious reasons. And the frauds on Broadway have exploited this false positive mercilessly. Frauds on Broadway, not all of them gentiles, have taken the false positive of the honest satellite data, combined with their own horseshit, to allege that they have an 86% probability that the year 2016 was the hottest year on the instrumental record.
Complete fucking lies but very hard to stand up and call out once you have admitted that the satellite data is honest data. So the forces of evil have landed one clean on the jaw here, and its got even the biggest skeptics acting very cautious and restrained. I see these dudes backing off some because the satellite data isn’t telling them the story they expected.
So what is going on here? Let me explain this to the layman, to see why this supposed confirmation of the lies of the bad guys, by the satellite, is got to be assumed to be, at maybe 98% certainty, a false positive. And why this cannot be resolved without an honest survey of the ground data.
Since the global warming fraud has started people have talked as if the sun did not give off infra-red. In reality more than half the energy we get from the sun is infrared. Since the global warming fraud people have talked as if the infra-red absorbed by CO2 is independent of that absorbed by water vapour. In reality they are overlapping. And while CO2 is a narrow absorber in three tiny ranges, water vapour is a wide-spectrum absorber of infra-red.
In other words if CO2 mixes above water vapour it is absorbing some infrared prior to that infrared hitting the water vapour and heating it up. As a result of that absorption, in the first instant at least, some of the area above where water vapour taps out should be warmed by extra CO2, at the expense of the region underneath. So our first assumption has to be that extra CO2 cools the atmosphere below the clouds but warms some part of the atmosphere above that.
Now how about the greenhouse myth towards the make-up of the light from the sun being too much in the higher spectrums, whereas the thermal energy coming off the earth being all in the infra-red? Well thats kind of crazy-talk. Because the ratio is less than two-to-one. What about other energy? Well yes you have electrical energy difference between the ionosphere and the deep earth. Which is really a residual difference between the sun and the deep earth.
This electrical energy will get converted to thermal energy, thermal energy has a way of working opposite to gravity, and the CO2, particularly where and when the air is dry, will pick up some of this, which the water vapour may not have done so on its own. As we can see there are a lot of wild cards which mean we must rely on good data.
You might think that its a reasonable position to take that the CO2 will clearly absorb more joules outgoing than joules incoming so we can right away infer net warming. The reasoning might go like this; Since the ratio of infra-red incoming to infrared outgoing may be (lets say) 1.8 to 1 … and since I’ve admitted to another incoming source of energy … that will pull it up to maybe 2-to-1 and so the global warming theory still holds.
But in a 3 dimensional model, rather than a model based on watts-per-square-metre, not every joule is equal. Image a pyramid house. Is the heater in the attic as effective as the heater in the basement, for heating the pyramid house, joule for joule? No of course not. The heater in the basement is far more important. So the matter simply cannot be resolved except empirically.
Now we come to the honest data we do have. And thats the satellite data from 1979 to the present. Which does seem to show a tiny bit of CO2 warming. Because the temperature has gone up even during solar cycle 24 (a weak solar cycle) leading to the hottest year being in 2016. Well as we have seen the LEAST in doubt idea is that the extra CO2 ought to warm the atmosphere a little bit, above the clouds. Above at least where the water vapour taps out. So we expect a false positive with a high level of certainty. Because of reasons explained above we don’t really know the net effect on the ground. I say that the net effect on the ground ought to be cooling. But for reasons explained thats more than can be inferred by just thinking deeply about it.
We need good ground data. And no more excuses for why we don’t have it.
Here is the usual modern interpretation of Michelson Morley and you can see right away how this wrong interpretation supports both mummified geocentrists and the Team Einstein fraud.
“If the earth were moving through the aether, than a source of aether wind would be created at the surface of the earth…”
But this is like saying that if we go outside the wind must be blowing at the speed that the earth is turning. But this is not the case. The earth takes the air with it, for the most part, and there is only a small coriolis effect. A small effect only.
Since aether connects every nucleon with every other, it follows that movement would be impossible unless the aether connections were constantly breaking and reforming. Plus since visual images are coherent it follows that matter, or at least massive aggregations of matter, take the aether with it, just as the rotating earth takes the air with it also. For the most part but not entirely.
So the entire basis of the modern interpretation makes no sense. We might have expected to find some tiny aether wind or perhaps none at all. Just as when you step outside at the equator there may be a small wind blowing from east to west but its never going to match the speed of the earths rotation.
Michelson Morley found a tiny aether wind but apparently decided to brand their own experiment as a “null result”. But the experiment is what it is. It ought not be branded. They detected the aether wind but it was small, as you would expect in logic, so they just threw in the term “null result” which should be ignored because it means nothing. Its a meaningless term. There was no “null result” there was only the experimental result which was incompatible with Team Einstein bullshit and with Geocentrism …. but not by any massive degree.
It would be like stepping outside at the equator and finding that the wind was not blowing at 1000 miles per hour, but only at 5 miles an hour, and being horribly confused. Michelson and Morley themselves weren’t horribly confused. They weren’t thrown into some sort of philosophical quagmire. What happened instead is many years later a lot of charlatans leapt on the phrase “null result” and these grubby little men proceeded to take over physics as their cousins might have taken over the meat packing business in any given city.
The Einstein brainwashing is wearing off, but unfortunately some very logical Catholic true believers and other religious types have swung back to Geocentrism. Despite this apparent craziness what is notable about these guys is that they are considerably more logical than team Einstein. You can imagine how despairing this is for anyone who knows what is going on.
The normal way of the oligarchy will be for them to promote and abuse the geo-centrists. Its just like with their young-Universe creation myth. They find all these creationists to promote and tie to the whipping post. That way they can continue with their Big Bang fraud. They can act like 13.8 billion years is a long time. Whereas in reality its just the sparkle in a young girls eye.
Is it pretty clear why the reverse square law for gravity isn’t a law but a range limited emergent property? I think I’ve dealt with it elsewhere amongst a big meandering thread. But I may have to do a single thread going over that material because it may be a bit confusing to some people. In order to create a cult of personality over Einstein that had to have a parallel cult to do with Newton. And Maxwell for that matter. So they can kind of jump foot to foot.
We can skim over the basics. Gravity is a force. Its obviously a pull-force. And its instantaneous, this implies constant contact. We know that matter is all joined by an aether since light has wave-length. Wave requires a medium. That medium is called the aether. So we already knew that matter maintained constant contact, since matter is visible.
Mother nature is parsimonious with its mechanisms so that this same aether is responsible for gravity. This aether theory is very similar to Bill Gaedes rope theory. The thing is though, that the smallest unit of aether, has to be very tiny in comparison to an individual proton, electron, and neutron. Since no one strand of aether has any real effect on any of these. That is to say when it comes to the very small stuff the pull force of the connections is vanishingly tiny.
If this is new to you, take a breath and absorb all this, because we have to dive into the implications of how gravity would work nucleon to nucleon and what the implications are when we scale up.
Just in passing lets mention the electric universe guys. Their main insight is that electrical effects, deeply mysterious that they are, scale really well. They see the same things happening on the scale of light years, that they see on the scale of just a few centimetres in the lab. I think they have made their case really well. But gravity, that slight pull-force that the aether creates, almost by accident, DOESN’T scale real well.
I think aether scales real well. In that I think a Birkeland current is acting like a giant strand of aether, even though its travelling through all these tiny strands of aether. And when light travels through aether its as though the aether is “scaled up” to allow it to do so.
Electrical effects aren’t size dependents (or so the case is very well made) but gravitational effects are. Because a small insect barely feels the force of gravity as he climbs up a wall. But the fat man feels the force only too much as he walks up the stairs.
Now imagine that the nucleon to nucleon gravitational force drops off to the third power and not to the second. Like an inverse cube law. You are on a spherical earth but the surface is perfectly flat. Every molecule on the planet and in the air above you is exerting a pull force on you, but some of them at different angle.
As you ascend to the clouds like Jesus does in the story, think of how the force vectors from many of the molecules of earth are changing? The higher you go, the closer to straight down a lot of these force vectors are becoming. Now do you see what I’m saying about the end result being an emergent property? The force vectors are changing so the resultant force is becoming more effective. Thus compensating in such a way as to make the drop-off in force less pronounced.
Anywhere above the point where hydrogen weather balloons tap out, the only things subject to gravity are orbiting. That is to say moving roughly perpendicular to the earth. I’m saying that this movement reduces the gravitational pull “a little bit.” Some items will have an elliptical orbit. All circular motion involves acceleration. But elliptical orbits accelerate and decelerate a lot more than circular orbits. I’m saying acceleration, unless the movement (not the acceleration itself) is towards the earth (rather than perpendicular to it) breaks a lot of aether connections and therefore reduces the force of gravity “quite a bit.” So I’m saying that the inverse square law isn’t really true, only appears to be true, and only appears to be true in a fairly limited range, and that its an emergent property for the reasons mentioned.
Just wanted to clear that one up. Because the big thread on growing earth, gravity and mountain-building can be a bit hard to follow.
So if you were to plug this sort of thing into a computer model you are going to find out why orbits are so forgiving. Why gravity is not clumpy and crash-happy. Why mathematicians can barely solve a three-body problem but the galaxy solves a multi-billion body orbiting problem effortlessly. Why NASA finds that rockets pick up anomalous energy when they slingshot them around planets. Why spiral arm galaxies don’t act the way the mainstream wants them to, so they had to make up dark matter. All that stuff is explained by the above view of gravity. So I’ve really cracked it. These problems can be solved if you listen to dissident voices, stop putting down people as “crackpots’ and you dwell on these things long enough.
It is on the basis of this Galaxy Rotation Curve, that stupid-town has postulated dark matter. What an embarrassment! So what is the answer to this alleged anomaly? The way we see galaxies moving in the real universe is inherent in everything I’ve already said about physics. Galaxies ought to act in the way they do indeed act, according to what I’ve said already. But its easier to understand why, than it is to explain why. So I’ll do my best to give you a feel for this.
We need to recap the basics of how matter and gravity works. When you have one large object and one small object the two objects want to amalgamate. So if one object is bigger than the moon and the other is smaller than Phobos, typically they want to come together. But if both objects are larger than the moon they want to orbit. And their orbit will be energy-positive. New pristine energy will be created during this orbit.
When contemplating matter in the process of evolving, it ought to occur to you that if the above rules weren’t in place, no meaningful reality could have gotten going. Gravity would make matter clumpy and crash-happy. If Gravity worked in accordance with the modern stupidity gravity would be clumpy and crash-happy. So this idea of larger objects wanting to orbit and smaller objects wanting to amalgamate with larger objects, was necessary for our particular FORM of matter to gain the edge during the evolution of matter.
The above speculation as to ancient matter evolution might not be readily apparent as a necessary consequence of sound reasoning, until you realise that for the universe to exist in the form we find it, somewhere along the line a form of matter had to evolve which was conducive to the creation of more matter. Matter must help in the creation of new matter, or each new act of matter creation, would amount to a separate miracle. Our matter is fairly durable and doesn’t break down quickly. Nonetheless it does break down, and so we have a basis for the evolution of competing forms of matter. So you see there is a number of characteristics for the matter we see everywhere to achieve, before it could have gotten everywhere in the quantities we see it.
Matter helps create new matter and so that moons grow to planets grow to gas giants grow to stars grow to bigger stars, and if they grow big enough they become a big dark object like Sagittarius A*. There is electrically only room for one of these beasts per galaxy. When another object gets to that size, it will be pushed out of the galaxy as a Quasar. The Quasar will take a bunch of stars with it, and form a new galaxy.
Now of course this idea that the universe is only 13.8 billions of years old is complete stupidity and the creation myth need not detain us here. Our sun will be a lot older than that. And Jupiter will be much older than 13.8 billion years as well. The milky way galaxy is hundreds of billions of years old for sure.
So the orbits of the spiral arms have come about under the above rules over many hundreds of billions of years. In the analysis of the mainstream the time factor is left out of the equation.
So we see that even objects as small as the earth and the moon don’t want to collide. The orbit introduces pristine energy. And yet the orbit is very forgiving. They don’t wish to crash. But they aren’t wanting to separate completely from each-other. That being the case how is it that the orbits separate out into spiral arms?
The orbits of planets and moons wants to get bigger for starters but its a slight and slow thing that goes in line with the growing size of the objects. This tendency of orbits of non-stars (but large objects) to grow, is therefore not sufficient cause for spiral arm segregation. Or for new stars to get their own solar system.
But supposing you come back and these objects have progressed onto both being big stars? Thats not a likely story that they would still be together. Because every so often you get an eruption from the centre of the galaxy that blows up moons, planets and stars, and then a whole lot of orbits are rearranged, over hundreds or perhaps a few thousand years.
But supposing they have been together all this time? There is an additional factor making these stars want to be forced apart. You see stars have a proton wind. So two stars have an extra factor repelling them. Actually Saturn and Jupiter both have proton winds as well. But I would not think that this proton wind would amount to much, given the problem to hand.
So anyhow you can kind of imagine that with the above rules in place, the serendipity of exploding objects, and the repulsion of proton winds, that these stars will separate out, firstly into separate solar systems (our sun may have once been a planet orbiting one of those big chunky stars of Orion) but also into spiral arms. Most solar systems are dual star by the way. So the solar system separation is yet to occur in these cases.
Now we come to this alleged anomaly, that has led these cosmologists to make complete fools of themselves.
So this gives you a bit of an idea what is going on here. After a short distance out, the speed of the stars rotation around the milky way stabilises. Why would this be an anomaly? Certainly its not something to be inventing non-existent dark matter about! You see what is going on here? The stars closer to the centre rotate around the galaxy, at about the same speed, as the stars further out from the centre. Why would this be odd? Is the mainstream just playing silly buggers with us? Why pretend this is a strange situation when its exactly how you would expect these stars to behave?
Well about 120 years a bunch of oligarchs and Jews came up with a strategy to take over physics and cosmology. One standard technique for exercising control over others was to force people to believe something that could not be true under any circumstances. But one of these bright sparks had an inspiration …… “Why not this time..” said the little rat fink “…. we instead force people to DISBELIEVE something we know for a fact is true …… its really the same technique after all…..”
So since we knew that there was an aether, being as we could measure the wave-length of light, these horrible little Bolsheviks started applying political pressure, to outlaw the aether.
Now the aether connects every nucleon with every other, but were these permanent connections there would be no movement at all. All matter would be fixed in relation to all other matter. So therefore we know that all aether connections are always in the process of breaking and reforming. Anti-gravity efforts consist of not allowing aether connections time to reform, as well as they might.
So supposing you are a star orbiting the galaxy and a star further out from the centre is ahead of you. But you are gaining on that star since you have less of a distance, given that your circular orbit is inside the orbit of the star in question. Well that start pulls you along a little bit, and when you overtake you pull that star along a bit, and its as easy to see as can be possible that the speeds would become very similar.
So we already know that aether connections are constantly breaking and reforming. But if they were rigid and supposing the galaxy was rotating, the further out the stars were the faster they would be going. But we know that gravity doesn’t work like that, and particularly from the orbits of planets in our own solar system. The closer in the faster you move, when it comes to planets and moons within our solar system.
But in the case of stars in the galaxy, the outer and inner stars end up homogenising their rotation speed to a very great extent. Which confirms pretty much everything I’ve said about the way gravity works and refutes everything these clowns in the mainstream say. But they won’t take “no” for an answer so they are back with this “dark matter” idea. Its morons we are dealing with here. Morons and people of bad character.
Another thing to remember. While Newtons formulae appear to work pretty well in the inner solar system, the inverse square “law”, as explained elsewhere, ought to be considered an “emergent property” and not the actual reality. On a nucleon to nucleon basis its more likely that the drop-off in the gravitational force of attraction is closer to the 3rd power. On that level it might be closer to an inverse cube law. But you have to consider the speed-and-acceleration, at which the object are moving in relation to each-other, as well as the angled force vectors operating on the two objects. It is likely that the inverse square law is merely an emergent property, that only works after a fashion, at middling distances.
A consequence of this misunderstanding will have the cosmologists under-estimating the mass of the outer “gas giant” planets, which aren’t gas giants at all. Just big rocky planets with gigantic oceans and outsized atmospheres.
A consequence is that stars will be more influenced by other stars near to them, than by the central mass of the galaxy, than what the mainstream will have in their calculations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bill Gaede talks about the galaxy as moving like a Catherine Wheel. Well I’m not so sure about that. He may be oversimplifying here. But he gave me the idea to just look at the Catherine Wheel in contemplation of the galaxy. Who the hell knows what electrical forces are being unleashed here? Bill is no fan of the electric universe crowd. I think he’s being too hard on them. But I’ve just described all this proton-wind repulsion going on in the galaxy. Electrical effects are tricky things and you’d have to wonder what the net result of all this positive charge repulsion would be, when most of the balancing negative charges are kind of hidden from the picture I’m painting.
So you guys who understand electricity better than I do, maybe just watch this here Catherine Wheel spinning a bit, in contemplation of the Milky Way galaxy turning. It might help you think more clearly and come up with something really cosmic.
Candidate Ron Paul was an old, near-minarchist right-wing Christian white male Republican. Candidate Tulsi Gabbard is a young, left-wing, mixed race, female, Hindu Democrat. They are the same.
Don’t ask me straight out to prove they are the same. I’m supposed to be the worlds most holistic prophet. Prophets aren’t going to spell it out for you. Ron Paul and Tulsi Gabbard are the same in ways that go far deeper than the biffing and baffing of contemporary politics.
I was putting about the idea of the Ron Paul “I am Ron Paul” meme well before the campaign took it up. I started saying “I am Ron Paul” well before that, and specifically on the Louisianna university blog. The LSU tigers blog.
But I got the idea of it from the Spike Lee movie about Malcolm X. So it may have been me who passed it on to the Ron Paul team. Or they may have made that same mental link on their own. But I was inspired by Spike. And Brother Malcolm. A real brother to us all.
I won’t say that Ron Paul, and Tulsi Gabbard, and Malcolm X are the same. Because the oligarchy murdered Malcolm before, or just as he had put together the full flowering of his intellectual righteousness. They murdered Malcolm and yet stole his sperm. Thats how evil these people are.
Malcolm had a way of saying everything that John Galt said with oh so fewer words.
I am Malcolm X and by any means necessary. But the oligarchy murdered Malcolm too soon so I won’t make a troika out of this.
I cannot as a prophet spell these things out to you. But I’ll give you a clue. Or rather I’ll let “My Chemical Romance” give you the clue as to why Ron Paul and Tulsi Gabbard are the same.
Only the first two minutes of the song is relevant, or any good, but the first two minutes of the song is worth listening too many times.
The tide goes in and out and the words used in the language of politics take different shades as to their meaning. But Ron Paul and Tulsi Gabbard are the same. In a way that escapes any kind of obsession with contemporary politics.
Ron Paul and Tulsi Gabbard are the same. In a way that goes deeper than left or right. Up or down.
